Play
The concept of play evolved from the disciplines of psychology, education, and childhood development, referring not a particular act (we play baseball), but instead, to an observable mental and motivational approach to the act.
Play is dependent on the internal framing of an activity by the individual engaged in the activity. For example, throwing a ball at a target may be intrinsically understood as play for some, while for others, the same act would not be interpreted as play.
Problems with the definition
Play is often place in a dichotomy with work, a dichotomy that is problemetized when attention is given to the use of play as a tool for learning. The binary of play/work is attached to cultural value statements and signifiers, with play often being associated with frivolity, and work being viewed as essential for survival (Encyclopedia of Children and Childhood in History and Society).
Both Vygotsky and Piaget, whose names, “pop up on seemingly every other page of the literature (Bartlett 2)” fail to concisely define the concept of play, and despite the frequent use of the word, there remains, “no generally accepted definition of play (Smith 1042)”
Krasnor and Pepler (1980) suggest four criteria for identifying play: Flexibility, Positive Affect, Intrinsic Motivation, and Nonliterality – though this model is challenged and recategorized by others. It is important to note that these categories do not define play, but rather, serve as a methodology for making judgments in observable phenomena about the presence of play.
Play and work are powerful binary oppositions that have attached to them a number of signifiers. Work, for example, is valued as a necessity that provides the material basis for life. It is also frequently seen as giving meaning to life. Play, in contrast, is often seen as frivolous and lacking the serious purpose of work.
Smith, Peter K. and Ralph Vollstedt. On Defining Play: An Emprical Study of the Relationship between Play and Various Play Criteria. Childhood Development (56) 1985, 1042-1050.
Bartelett, Tom. “The Case for Play.” Chronicle of Higher Education 57.25 (2011)
The concept of play evolved from the disciplines of psychology, education, and childhood development, referring not a particular act (we play baseball), but instead, to an observable mental and motivational approach to the act.
Play is dependent on the internal framing of an activity by the individual engaged in the activity. For example, throwing a ball at a target may be intrinsically understood as play for some, while for others, the same act would not be interpreted as play.
Problems with the definition
Play is often place in a dichotomy with work, a dichotomy that is problemetized when attention is given to the use of play as a tool for learning. The binary of play/work is attached to cultural value statements and signifiers, with play often being associated with frivolity, and work being viewed as essential for survival (Encyclopedia of Children and Childhood in History and Society).
Both Vygotsky and Piaget, whose names, “pop up on seemingly every other page of the literature (Bartlett 2)” fail to concisely define the concept of play, and despite the frequent use of the word, there remains, “no generally accepted definition of play (Smith 1042)”
Krasnor and Pepler (1980) suggest four criteria for identifying play: Flexibility, Positive Affect, Intrinsic Motivation, and Nonliterality – though this model is challenged and recategorized by others. It is important to note that these categories do not define play, but rather, serve as a methodology for making judgments in observable phenomena about the presence of play.
Play and work are powerful binary oppositions that have attached to them a number of signifiers. Work, for example, is valued as a necessity that provides the material basis for life. It is also frequently seen as giving meaning to life. Play, in contrast, is often seen as frivolous and lacking the serious purpose of work.
Encyclopedia of Children and Childhood in History and Society. Play.
http://www.faqs.org/childhood/Th-W/Theories-of-Play.html
Smith, Peter K. and Ralph Vollstedt. On Defining Play: An Emprical Study of the Relationship between Play and Various Play Criteria. Childhood Development (56) 1985, 1042-1050.
Bartelett, Tom. “The Case for Play.” Chronicle of Higher Education 57.25 (2011)